Faculty of Engineering

Faculty Board

ENG10-M1

Minutes of the meeting of the Faculty Board held 19 May 2010.

Members: Professor Chris Backhouse (Acting Dean and Chair), Dr Adam Crawford, Dr Paul Cunningham, Dr Sandie Dann (ab), Professor John Dickens, Dr James Flint, Dr Matthew Frost (ab), Dr Ralph Gottschalg, Dr Jane Horner, Mrs Stephanie McKeating, Dr Danish Malik (ab), Dr Sue Morton, Dr Zoly Nagy, Dr Mohamed Osmani, Professor David Parish, Professor Rob Parkin, Professor Shirley Pearce (ab), Dr Jon Petzing, Dr Simon Pomeroy, Professor Chris Rielly (ab), Dr Carol Robinson, Professor Steve Rothberg, Dr Mike Smith, Professor Richard Stobart, Mr Tony Sutton, Dr Dave Twigg (ab), Professor Yiannis Vardaxoglou, Mr Scott Vickers, Dr Stephen Walsh, Mr David Waugh (ab).

Observer: Wg Cdr Angela Hawley (ab)

Apologies for absence: Sandie Dann, Matthew Frost, Danish Malik, Chris Rielly, Scott Vickers, David Waugh and Angela Hawley.

In attendance: Marie Kennedy

Minutes (ENG09-M2)

Approved.

Matters arising from the minutes:

.1 Mathematics Education Centre Annual Report

Dr Carol Robinson had circulated data regarding Faculty students’ attendance at the two Mathematics Learning Support Centres which confirmed that most Engineering students used the West Park MLSC.

.2 Research Excellence Framework

Departments had begun development and collation of the impact statements that were likely to be required under the new methodology; these and other preparations for the REF return were being taken forward via the Directorate.

.3 Recruitment

The AD(T) had discussed with some departmental Admissions Tutors the possibility of slightly reduced entry requirements for some DTUS applicants. No firm decision had been reached, but some concessions may be possible during the August confirmation period, perhaps including mature applicants with non-standard educational backgrounds. An exchange of visits was taking place with Welbeck with the aim of encouraging applications to Loughborough.

Graduate destination data (ENG10-P1)

Ms Ruth Grainger was welcomed to the meeting to deliver the Careers Centre report. Data broken down by department were available on the web, and data benchmarked against other HEIs would be available in July. Subject advisers would provide departments with further information on request, including percentages of students in different categories rather than raw numbers. Although unemployment rates for Faculty departments had risen slightly compared to previous years, this was less than expected; the number of Engineering students undertaking further study had also risen slightly. The quality of employment for Faculty students had increased compared to the previous year, with 77% in relevant employment; this proportion demonstrated the good relations that Engineering departments had with employers. The slightly improved economic situation meant that employment might have increased since data were collected in January, but continuing problems in industries such as construction, including loss of sponsorship, might have a negative effect on next year’s data in those subjects.

Employers continued to report vacancies, but 25% remained unfilled because they were being very selective. Students therefore needed to be imaginative, proactive and focussed in seeking suitable jobs, to look beyond the usual larger employers, and provide good CVs. Some employers were now recruiting on a rolling rather than an annual basis but many continued to attend campus-based events such as the Careers Fairs. Some had made direct approaches to the Careers Centre and to individual departments, seeking a selection of CVs from good-quality students; departments were discouraged from complying with such requests.

The University’s Employability Award programme was now well established, with 350 students from all years enrolled, including 65 from the Faculty. The Award was useful to students seeking employment, although it could prove difficult to combine with study, and was best undertaken across two years rather than one. There was also a good correlation of students undertaking the placement year with those obtaining appropriate graduate positions and with good salaries. Members were reminded that students could continue to use the Centre throughout their career.

Reports from Faculty Officers

.1 Acting Dean

(a) University financial position

The University had been less affected than some HEIs by recent government cuts in the HE budget and had received more than expected from the HEFCE allocation for 2010-11. It had also benefited from the 2008 RAE and its financial position was therefore better than anticipated the previous year. Although the University was in a relatively strong financial position, it could not expect government contributions to continue at previous levels, and was likely to consolidate rather than expand. The recently-elected government was likely to make further changes to the HE sector – it might, for example, remove the cap on variable fees. The University would therefore continue to budget for a minimum annual saving of 5%, although it remained committed to the objectives listed in its Strategic Plan.

The Executive Leadership Team had recently established working parties to consider value for money initiatives, and Heads of Department were encouraged to seek suggestions from their staff, including new Faculty-level initiatives.

(b) Proposed restructuring of the University (ENG10-P7)

The Project Management Board (PMB) established by Senate in January had a very short timetable in which to consult and report. It had held two meetings and was due to meet again at the end of May before reporting to Senate at the end of June. It had held a number of discussions, including those with Faculty Directorates and AD(T)s, and received comments from various parts of the University. A range of views had been expressed: some supportive, and some concerned about (among other things) the possible loss of Faculties and of departmental identify and independence. Members of the PMB had divided into three groups to consider: the Faculty structure, schools, and the case for change, which meant they were not fully aware of all contributions. The Chair of the PMB had circulated an interim report in April, and more recently the Board had suggested an alternative structure to the original proposal of 11 schools.

The alternative proposal had attempted to maintain some Faculty identity while combining existing departments into new schools, and changing the current structure of HoDs, Dean and University Executive.

There was a widespread feeling in the University that the PMB had not been allowed sufficient time to consult on alternative proposals, and much disquiet that decisions might be reached without due consideration. Members noted that the original purpose of the proposals was to identify opportunities for savings, for better utilisation of space, and structural robustness: any revised proposals should therefore be tested against these three principles. Members argued that the University needed more evidence of the alleged efficiency gains on clear timescales of (say) five and ten years. They further argued that it was essential to consider the significant costs of change, not least opportunity costs regarding the next REF, which had so far not been acknowledged.

The Board noted that there was no external input into Loughborough’s deliberations, that there had been no reference to organisational theory nor evidence of consideration of empirical data. Members were concerned that the University should exhibit scholarship and approach such an important matter in an orderly way.

Members believed it was essential that University staff should support any restructuring. They also believed it imperative that the University value and preserve its best structures, particularly as it moved into a less favourable economic climate. They did not consider it timely to propose changes in the face of imminent cuts to the HE budget.

The Board noted that other leading universities had undertaken major restructuring which was later found to be unworkable; some had reverted to their original models while others had suffered as a result in the RAE. Similar outcomes were feared at Loughborough. The Board also noted that colleagues in the HE sector had expressed surprise that Loughborough was proposing changes when its current organisation had proved so effective in achieving its current status. Members considered that the proposed restructuring would erode Loughborough’s hard-won reputation in the sector.

The Board appreciated that the other two Faculties were less synergistic and therefore less motivated to retain the current Faculty structure, but it deplored the possible loss of the Faculties and Engineering in particular. The Faculty had been demonstrably effective and successful across a number of years, and members strongly supported its retention. Loughborough’s Engineering ‘brand’ was known across the sector and with the Research Councils; it had brought considerable resources into the University that were not reflected across all departments. Members believed that a single, strong Engineering identity benefited the whole University, and that current proposals would weaken it. There was no support within the Faculty for its removal.

None of the models suggested in the interim report indicated how departments, or units such as the CETLs, would be represented in the Executive Leadership Team. Without the Faculty Deans, the future ELT would have no-one with line management responsibility for academic staff. Members noted how the coherence of the Faculty provided support for Heads of Department, and were concerned that none of the proposals so far put forward offered any alternative means of support. They feared that if the Faculty were removed, departments would diverge in future.

The Mathematics Education Centre supported the retention of the Engineering Faculty. For a number of years, it had benefited from Faculty support, for example in its bids for funding and for centre for excellence status. The Faculty had also been involved in overseeing the quality of services provided by the MEC and MLSC. Current links with the Faculty were clear but if restructuring proposals were to go ahead, the MEC might lose (inter alia) its service-teaching. It was therefore important fully to consider all the risks associated with any proposals. The engCETL had also benefited from a coherent Engineering Faculty, and feared the negative effects of a possible break-down into smaller units.

The Board noted that the current University organisation had delivered excellence in areas such as the National Student Survey, External Subject Review, and the Student Experience. The proposals to date had not included any real consideration of how quality assessment and enhancement would work in future, and would therefore remove systems that were manifestly successful in raising Loughborough’s profile nationally and internationally, without providing any alternative. There remained a strong case for retention of the Faculty Associate Deans.

The Board agreed that it was essential the PMB had a clear understanding of staff views, and members were encouraged to submit any further comments either through the two Faculty representatives or directly to the Chair.

(c) Faculty Strategy Implementation Plan (ENG10-P2)

The Directorate had considered it appropriate for the Faculty to develop an implementation plan which would convert the University’s ‘Towards 2016’ Strategy into meaningful departmental actions, and had held a special meeting in February to consider a draft Plan. It had adopted a quantitative approach intended to help assess performance and raise standards across all departments. Faculty Board members were now invited to comment on the subsequently revised draft.

Members noted that some teaching metrics were not aligned with data currently in use in other fora, and felt it was essential to be clear what these data were intended to do. For example, was it more appropriate to use data for applications against offers than offers against conversions, and was the proportion of students obtaining first and upper second degrees the best indicator of achievement, despite its value as a nationally-used measure across different subjects? The metrics should also take account of the reversal of the five-point scale used in module feedback, in order to be consistent with the NSS: care was therefore needed in making comparisons across different years. Members further noted that departments already provided a range of metrics for Annual Programme Reviews, and that APR might be used to monitor implementation of some aspects of the Plan.

Members also noted that development of the Plan provided further evidence of the Faculty’s cohesion, and trusted it would remain meaningful regardless of possible future changes.

.2 Associate Dean (Research)

(a) Research Excellence Framework

HEFCE had recently announced the outcome of its consultations with stakeholders regarding the future REF, although the recent change of government meant that proposals were likely to be further refined. The census date, at which data were captured, would probably be 2013, one year later than expected; results should then be available in 2014 and would influence research funding from 2015.

At present, it was expected that each returnee would be allowed up to four outputs, and that some major pieces of work could be double-weighted (ie counted as two pieces); bibliometrics were likely to be less important. Impact would probably remain, although, under the new government, a more traditional definition of impact might be used; departments should therefore continue to develop and collate strong impact statements. The publication capture date was likely to be September 2011, and it was essential that staff should submit papers asap, and ensure all journal papers were put onto the University Repository.

(b) Development Award studentships

The University had made available a further £1M to fund 50 studentships for UK/EU applicants, to be allocated strategically across departments and research schools. A single advertisement would appear in the Times Higher Education and online. The effective start-date would be September 2010, which provided the opportunity for students to complete in time for inclusion in the REF. The AD(R) would be seeking the ten best applications from each department. Departmental recommendations would first be considered by the AD(R) and Research Co-ordinators, and the Research Team would make the final choice. Selection would be based on quality of applicant, of the expected research project, and of the departmental statement; the latter should include a reference to the expected impact on the department’s Strategic Plan and external references. Timing was tight and departments should process all applications in good time for the final allocation on 21 July 2010.

Current UK/EU applicants could be included, but departments would not be permitted to supplement funding in order to award studentships to international students. Members noted that this would militate against the Faculty; they noted that although strategic deployment of these studentships was intended to help develop the University as a whole, a strong Engineering Faculty also benefited the whole institution. However, it was possible that the eventual distribution would be fairly equal.

Heads of Department should consult the Faculty Marketing Manager for advice on the best advertising media, and keep her informed of all research student recruitment activities.

ACTIONS: HoDs

.3 Associate Dean (Teaching)

(a) Recruitment 2010/11

Undergraduate UK/EU: The Faculty should achieve its target of 730 with better quality students, following a general increase in entry requirements. The AD(T) would ensure the International Office was aware that some HND qualifications were unsuitable.

ACTIONS: AD(T)

Undergraduate international: The Faculty target remained the same as 2009 but the increase in IELTS entry requirements might slightly depress registrations.

Postgraduate Taught UK/EU: The number of applications, and the proportion from EU students, had again risen but total numbers remained small.

Postgraduate international: Applications for Engineering programmes had increased by 15%, with a greater proportion received from Indian applicants. The effect on registrations of the UK Borders Agency changes to student visa requirements remained uncertain. Members were advised that the recent delays in central processing of applications were because of a loss of key staff, the appointment of temporary staff, and organisational changes. Members noted that the delays could damage University and Faculty income.

(b) Annual Programme Reviews

These reports, together with those from the other Faculties, would shortly be considered at the Learning and Teaching Committee. Themes that had emerged from Engineering departments were:

- Strong UK/EU undergraduate applications and rising entry standards;

- Variable numbers of taught postgraduate intakes across different programmes;

- Relatively low progression rates for Part A and especially Part B undergraduates. Although the majority of students who failed modules in end of Semester assessment subsequently passed during the Special Assessment Period, and 90% of cohorts continued into Part C, the SAP significantly increased staff workload. Progression rates were apparently related to student engagement in general and were reflected at national level.

- External Examiners’ reports were generally positive, although some had commented on an apparent reluctance for staff to award high marks for good assessed work, especially final year projects. Some had expressed a request to meet current students during the year, as there was no such opportunity when programme boards met in July.

APR’s now included a report on NSS results which identified actions departments should take, and acted as a vehicle for collection of other information, in an attempt to reduce the number of discrete requests for data that departments received.

(c) NSS

The overall University response rate for 2010 was 76%, similar to its average of 75% across the six years of the Survey. Most Faculty departments had achieved high response rates. Results would be available during the summer and early autumn.

Award of research degrees (ENG10-P5)

APPROVED the following 16 PhD and 1 MPhil awards:

Doctor of Philosophy:

Aeronautical and Automotive Engineering:

J Eisenblaetter

A Tsotras

Civil and Building Engineering:

D Antoniadis

D D Mwanza

Electronic and Electrical Engineering:

A S Bermudez Contreras

M R Davies

T Kokkinos

T Rawlings

Wolfson School of Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering:

C Ding

T Y Hin

X Hou

M Khan

Z R Khokhar

M J Lee

J Liu

A Q Shaik

Master of Philosophy:

Civil and Building Engineering:

M Gesey

Personal titles

Congratulations were offered to the following member of the Faculty, who had been awarded a Personal Title:

Professor Tarek Hassan, Professor of Construction Informatics

Actions of the Associate Dean (Teaching) (ENG10-P6)

Approved.

Curriculum Sub-Committee

Noted.

Staff Student Committees

Noted.

Any other business

Development Trust:

Bids for funding up to £5,000 for projects to enhance the student experience should be made to the Development and Alumni Relations Office by 21 May 2010.

Date of the next meeting

1.15 pm on Wednesday 10 November 2010 (location TBD).

A sandwich lunch will be served at 1 pm.

Author – Marie Kennedy

Date – May 2010